|
Good or bad, commentary is useful By Michael C. Guilmette Jr. Originally published on Jan. 7, 2010, in the Connersville News-Examiner. It never ceases to amaze me how far some people will go to defend what they believe and the people they believe in.
However, not everyone shares this view. Some believe opposing voices must be squelched, and it is this attitude that worries me. Recently, we at the News-Examiner received a random e-mail from a person complaining about the treatment President Obama is getting from his critics. This type of thing is far from uncommon, as we regularly receive e-mail comments spammed to dozens — if not hundreds — of newspapers across the country. One of the dubious “benefits” of the advent of the Internet is the ability of people to aimlessly launch barely relevant commentary with the click of a mouse. This one, however, caught my eye. The sender took issue with Rush Limbaugh’s criticism of Obama, claiming the popular conservative talk show host called the president a thug. Limbaugh has certainly called Obama a lot of names on his show while critiquing the president’s policies and satirizing his administration. Obama is a public figure, which opens him up to lampooning, as is Limbaugh, who is no stranger to criticism and satire. The sender took exception to this arrangement. “Unfortunately, [the] Sedition Act was repealed in 1802, leaving open for (sic) Freedom of Speech. Which gives liberty to all those fellows on the airwaves, such as Rush Limbaugh, to call my President, who the majority of the Americans voted for, such names as thug, which means a cruel or vicious ruffian or a rough, lawless person.” Is it just me, or does this sender take issue with freedom of speech? Let's examine a little more: “I think there should be a law against such speech, like the Sedition Act of 1798.” For the uninitiated, the Sedition Act of 1798 was one of four bills known collectively as the Alien and Sedition Acts passed by the fifth U.S. Congress and signed into law by President John Adams. The act, as the sender cheerfully pointed out, made it a crime to publish “false, scandalous, and malicious writing” against the government or its officials. The act was meant to protect the dominant Federalists and Adams from criticism, but eventually backfired on its supporters and was allowed to sunset in 1801 as Adams left office. It was openly antithetical to the U.S. Constitution and our hallowed First Amendment, which makes it a disgrace it was ever on the books. But it would not be the first such egregious act. In 1918, Democrat President Woodrow Wilson signed the Sedition Act of 1918, making it a crime to use “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the United States government, flag, or armed forces during times of war. Newspapers in particular were muzzled by this act, since negative news could potentially hurt the morale of U.S. troops fighting during World War I. Peculiarly, the newspapers at the time did not loudly object and the Supreme Court even upheld the law. The law was eventually repealed in 1920 and the black-robed elites have since ruled such laws would be unconstitutional. However, the mere fact the law got as far as it did is troubling. Today, we live in a time when politicians and pundits are brazenly calling for speech-limiting measures like the Fairness Doctrine — which would push commentators like Limbaugh off the air — and supporting campaign reform legislation that limits a key proponent of free speech — political speech. What is most troubling about this is that many Americans not only do not object to such laws, but some are actually calling for such limitations. Some of them, I suspect, do not understand the purpose of a newspaper or the nature of social and political commentary. Last summer, after I wrote a column suggesting Obama needs to fail because he needs to know how it feels in order to grow as a president, I received an e-mail saying: “Your negative statements do not help the world situation. Negative paraphrasing detracts from the good a newspaper can accomplish.” This person did not directly call for us to openly support the president’s policies, but did want us to “give Obama a break” and hope he succeeds. Again, this is not the point of commentary. Besides, Obama already has plenty of cheerleaders in print and in the broadcast media. This ‘supportive media’ mindset extends far beyond the president, all the way down to the collegiate level. A friend of mine is advising a college newspaper, and he sent me an anonymous letter the paper received this week. In it, the sender called on the student paper to “stop your actions against many clubs on campus and be helpful and kind toward others. ... I feel that sometimes the negativity you express is wrong and should be stopped.” This is rather typical of a college reader, as I received similar complaints when I was running my college newspaper. Despite repeatedly telling my detractors the paper did not exist to make the school look good — or, conversely, to make it look bad — I was regularly accused by students and administrators of hurting recruitment because I didn’t sing the school’s praises or worship its overrated hockey team. What was worse was administrators who wanted to provide “oversight and guidance” to the paper because of what we had to say. Commentary in all its forms is meant to show flaws in arguments, positions and policies while attempting to sway public opinion. What’s more, commentary does not have force of law behind it; therefore, laws must not be used to silence it. • Guilmette is managing editor of the News-Examiner. He may be contacted at mguilmette@newsexaminer.com. |
|||
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2010, Michael C. Guilmette Jr. |
I don’t mean the specious, flimsy or outright bizarre arguments people will make for or against a particular issue. In my mind, debate is a good thing and should be fostered and encouraged as much as possible. Even the most inane argument should be aired because the light of day will serve to dispel that which is nonsense.
